Preston v. City of Chicago

Background

A Chicago police patrolman sued in state court after he was removed from the police payroll and sought a writ ordering the city to put his name back on the rolls so he could receive pay like other officers. He argued he belonged to the classified civil service and had a right to protection from removal, and he also said he had paid into a police pension fund. The Illinois courts sustained a demurrer and denied his mandamus claim, holding he was not in the classified service.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the officer was in the classified civil service and therefore entitled to procedural protections against removal and related federal constitutional review. The Supreme Court said the state court’s interpretation of Illinois statutes — that he was not in the classified service — was binding and raised no federal question the Court could decide. The Court also noted the state court found the claim barred by long delay, which would prevent federal review even if he had the claimed status. Because the only relief sought was reinstatement to the payroll, the Court declined to address whether any pension interests might be protected by the Federal Constitution.

Real world impact

The decision leaves the Illinois ruling intact and denies the officer’s request for reinstatement through mandamus. It confirms that state courts’ statutory interpretations about civil service status will control federal review in cases like this. The Court did not decide whether pension contributions create an independent federal property right, so that specific question remains unresolved and was not settled by this ruling.